This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
I have undone the addition on Antarctic warming by Phanly. This is for two reasons. Firstly, at present it does not fit into the page well. The Antarctic ice sheet includes the west antarctic ice sheet so a new section is confusing. This is a more general page on ice sheets and it is not at its current state useful to add this sort of detail. Phanly has added this same text to several articles, some where it fits better. Secondly the quality of the addition is poor. The citations/references have no style and need a large amount of work and all four of them (added multiple times and not joined) reference the same study by Eric Steig but in different ways including his biog and a blog. As good as this study is, it is no good throwing in 4 references to try to make it look like some sort of wide consensus when it is really one study. I am not against this addition in wikipedia. In fact I spent some time on the
Antarctic Ice Sheet page improving the referencing that Phanly had added.
Polargeo (
talk) 08:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks Polargeo. I have followed your criticisms and inserted a simple single sentence and copied the Nature reference you greatly improved. Cheers
dinghy (
talk) 05:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
Ice sheet. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
what exactly is it ? How exact are the data obtained with these methods ?
I hope there is an expert ( m / f / d ) who can add a section to the article. thanks in advance ! --
Präziser (
talk) 05:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
That would indeed be good to add some information on that. You don't need to be an expert either, just have to know how to read the scientific literature on this. :-) I don't have time at the moment, otherwise I would do it. Perhaps there is information about it in the
Antarctic ice sheet or
Greenland ice sheet articles? Pinging
User:InformationToKnowledge, perhaps they know this topic off hand.
EMsmile (
talk) 21:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Overhaul (December 2023)
I've just reworked this article and have replaced a lot of the content with excerpts. That's because this is a fast moving topic (due to climate change...) and the bulk of the detail sits in the articles on
Antarctic ice sheet and
Greenland ice sheet. So I think excerpts are the ideal solution here for this article. It's really just an overview article about the two ice sheets on Earth.
EMsmile (
talk) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)reply
One thing to ponder over: should the content about geologic timescales be added to the main text (currently it's only in the lead)? Normally the lead is meant to summarise the content of the main text.
EMsmile (
talk) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I guess that since you have already excerpted the articles on the current ice sheets, providing excerpts from the articles about historical ice sheets would be reasonable.
As an aside: I see that there are now some contradictions between
Greenland ice sheet after my recent edits and the excerpted section on GrIS from
effects of climate change. The tricky part is that the latter is based on the 2019 SROCC, which wasn't really featured in the GrIS article at any point. Though the GrIS article now includes a lot of information from newer sources (information, which should be moved to the excerpt as well), I really need to think on how to work at least some of those references to SROCC into the article too, since it remains an important signpost in climate science.
Going back to directly double-check the accuracy of information cited to SROCC and even AR6 might be necessary: i.e. I have some doubts that "The Greenland ice sheet loss is mainly driven by melt from the top. Antarctic ice loss is driven by warm ocean water melting the outlet glaciers." is an accurate summary of what AR6 actually said, since two major papers on Greenland published 1-3 years before AR6 concluded that surface melt is responsible for no more than 33-51%, with outlet glaciers causing the rest.
InformationToKnowledge (
talk) 14:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Regarding the geologic timescales I have now added two excerpts for that. Is "geologic timescales" the best wording? I've seen also "Ancient Earth" and "pre-history" but personally I think I like "geologic timescales" the best. Could also be convinced otherwise though.
Regarding the details from different reports: this would be useful/important to document and reconcile but I can imagine that it can be quite fiddly / detective work. Would be good to have additional people to help with that, maybe even experts in the field who have all that knowledge at their fingertips.
EMsmile (
talk) 10:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply